Re: Forcing an application to load assemblies from a specific path

By your logic no bug could ever be fixed in a version and all releases would
have to be side by side.

I would have to run with the exact version I compiled against ...

Sounds familiar.

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Fernando Tubio <[email protected]> wrote:

> Finally! You seem to agree with me
>
> ... "There's really nothing anyone can do to avoid breaking an application
> that is making incorrect assumptions while reflecting code."...
>
> So it is a breaking change, sorry, a "disruptive alteration".
>
> I insist that you are trying to push me into an API discussion when I
> believe this is a deployment issue, and a very difficult one. I think they
> can fix all the APIs that they want, and I'm glad that this happens. I'm
> not
> convinced that claiming that this is still .NET 3.5 SP1 is the way to go.
> And if Windows 7 introduces changes that can potentially disrupt
> applications, then you should still be able to deploy the original
> framework bits side by side and get on with your life. But I'm sure that
> there are a lot more issues to consider other than maintaining
> compatibility
> with a badly written application. Perhaps this is the reason why I'm
> reluctant to "pick a side". That, and the fact that if you look at the
> subject line, you will recall what my primary concern was. Certainly not
> argueing for the inmutability of the framework APIs or the bad use of
> reflection.
>
> - Fernando
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Ritchie" <
> [email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Forcing an application to load assemblies
> from a specific path
>
>
> The problem is you haven't picked a side.  You've said you think the
> framework shouldn't break any software that runs on the previous version as
> well as saying their API is not wrong.
>
> Do you see the contradiction in this?  If the API isn't wrong and doesn't
> need changing, how do they "fix" the framework so it doesn't break this
> poorly coded application in the RTM version?
>
> The interface contracts and the semantics of the framework are what the
> .NET
> framework is supposed to address with regard to "DLL hell".  Even then,
> it's
> only as good at this as the designer of the framework.  If the designer
> removes methods, properties or even classes; you're right back to DLL hell.
>
> There's really nothing anyone can do to avoid breaking an application that
> is making incorrect assumptions while reflecting code.
> GetMethod("MethodName", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public) is one
> example--avoiding breaking this means never adding overloads to the
> framework.  Another example is typeof(String).GetField("m_arrayLength",
> BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)--avoiding breaking this
> means never changing or removing private fields.  There's endless examples
> like this that eventually lead you to the only solution to making sure
> existing applications don't break with a new version of the framework is to
> never change the framework.
>
> -- Peter
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:54:30 -0300, Fernando Tubio <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>  No, I'm leaving all the suggestions to you. I'm simply replying to your
>> objections to my use of the term "breaking change". If Windows 7 ships
>> with
>> the framework and they call this .NET 3.5 SP1, and the application breaks,
>> then it is a breaking change.
>>
>> Look, you are trying to push me into a side of the argument where I do not
>> wish to be. Whether MS is justified in introducing this change at the risk
>> of breaking some applications, I don't know. As I said previously, this is
>> really no different from DLL hell and I'm a little bit disappointed that
>> this is not handled better. After all, this is one of the issues that .NET
>> was supposed to address.
>>
>>
> ===================================
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
>
> ===================================
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
>



-- 
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it.

===================================
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives